There's A Right Way To Have A Cannibalism Fetish, According To Cosmo

When we think of well-adjusted and functional adults, the last thing that would pop into our minds is cannibals. But for whatever bizarre reasons, according to the editors at Cosmopolitan, society should view cannibalism as nothing more than an innocent fetish.

By S.G. Cheah3 min read
armie hammer cannibalism fetish cosmo

In response to the Armie Hammer cannibalism scandal, Cosmopolitan recently put out an article reminding its readers why Hammer’s penchant for cannibalism itself isn’t necessarily bad, but rather, the problem arises from the lack of consent. 

According to Cosmo, the public is focused on the wrong picture, because the problem is how the public has “remained focused on the sensationalism of his supposed cannibalism fetish and [has] ignored the real issue: that the foundation of true BDSM relationships is consent.”

Yes… according to Cosmo, it’s the lack of consent that’s the problematic part. If you’re thinking “Am I nuts for being revolted at someone who gets sexually aroused from being a cannibal?” then you’re problematic for overlooking the problem of consent.

Why Cannibalism Shouldn’t be Normalized

It’s hard to believe we’ve reached a point in society where this needs to be stated – cannibalism is bad. Cannibalism is not sexy. Eating human flesh is not an appropriate way of engaging in sexual activity. Anytime a sexual act (or fantasy) involves seriously hurting an intimate partner, it’s a form of self-destruction. Cannibalism in a sexual context is nihilism. Nihilism is the philosophical perspective that nothing in the world has a real existence, and therefore nothing (and no one) has any value or meaning. 

Nihilism is the philosophy that nothing and no one has any value or meaning.

This is the cult-like behavior of the postmodern progressive. We’re often told by the postmodern progressives that we shouldn’t shame people for their legitimately creepy sexual fetishes, like how we shouldn’t shame other unhealthy behaviors. What they don’t tell you is how this is a form of nihilism. Psychological fetishes like cannibalism are nihilistic because the person is getting off from the fact that they’re destroying something (why respect someone if nothing matters or has value?).

Put simply, a nihilist is a person who has no problem destroying something for their own purposes and pleasures precisely because it has “no value.” And yes, despite what Cosmopolitan tells you, it’s perfectly healthy to feel shame when you have to hurt someone else in order to obtain your sexual pleasure. Only psychopaths are devoid of shame.

But Isn’t Cannibalism Normal in Other Parts of the World?

While some might argue for the precedent of tribal cannibalism, the majority of the world no longer practices cannibalism, and furthermore, condemns it. Cannibalism was practiced in Fiji up until the late 1860s, and the Korowai tribe in the remote jungles of Indonesian New Guinea still practice a form of cannibalism to this day. But in both cases, eating another person was neither a positive nor a sexual thing.

For the native Fijians, eating your enemies was a form of ultimate revenge and insult. For the Korowai, it’s also revenge, not on a human, but on a “khakua” — a male witch who has taken the form of a man, disguised as a friend or family member, and who then eats the insides of a clan member while he sleeps (their explanation of disease). The khakua is then killed by clan members and eaten as punishment. Koworai member Boas stated, “We don’t eat humans, we only eat khakua.”

Promoting Self-Destructive Behaviors

The desire to ingest other human beings is not a benign, middle-class sexual fantasy like blindfolding or handcuffing a partner during sexual activities. Tying up your partner’s limbs or covering their eyes is not physically damaging to them. Cutting them up so you can eat their flesh, on the other hand, is physically destructive. 

Cannibalism is not a part of basic human nature. Humans are not hamsters. We don't eat our newborn babies. Nothing about the fetish of cannibalism is even remotely sexy. Really, this one is not that hard to figure out, Cosmopolitan

Nothing about the destructive fetish of cannibalism is even remotely sexy. 

When normal people are turned off by Armie Hammer's sexual fantasies of eating human flesh, it’s not "fetish shaming." We're just evaluating him like how we'd evaluate Jeffrey Dahmer. Since both men are sexually turned on by cannibalism, logic will dictate that it's best for us to avoid all contact with men like these. Logic is how our mind promotes our self-preservation. It’s quite simple. We think with our brain, so naturally, our brain is telling us that it would rather not end up as some cannibal's mid-afternoon snack.

Why Is the Media Promoting Unhealthy Behavior?

So why is Cosmopolitan trying to underplay the grotesqueness of Armie Hammer’s fetish for cannibalism? Is it because they’re an advocate for queer theory? Is it because they’re anti-life nihilistic postmodernists? No one really knows what goes on in the minds of the editors at Cosmo. We can only speculate. 

The basis of a functional society is grounded in a healthy sex-life.

But what we do know is that the basis for functional society is grounded in a healthy sex-life. A functional society is an important aspect for the advancement of our civilization. So it’s pretty obvious now, isn’t it, why the establishment media seems to be actively undermining traditionally appropriate sexual pleasures? 

Closing Thoughts

At this point in our culture, are we really surprised that Cosmopolitan would publish an apologia for the sexual fetish of eating human meat? As predictable as the sun rises on the east, we probably could have foreseen that the tastemakers working for establishment media like Cosmopolitan would eventually try to condone cannibalism. 

Consider the absurdity of these media establishments trying to normalize numerous deviant sexual fetishes (like cannibalism), yet demonizing those who refuse to date and/or sleep with transgendered people as being transphobic. I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I personally don’t know how any woman could still take Cosmopolitan seriously. The advice doled out to women by that magazine is absurd at best and damaging at worst.